rolanni | Honor's Paradox

Depends on whether you have a choice of masters?

Or whether you knew?

Or what the terms of your service were.

I would say no. People who served in the Bush II administration who were lied to in the same way that the American public was lied to are not dishonorable.

But if the question were changed to "if you honorably serve a dishonorable master..." and you are aware that the master is dishonorable I would say yes. Again, with the above example, once the lies were exposed as lies, if they continued to serve, then their own personal honor is very much in question.

That would depend on why the master was dishonored.

Batman is widely regarded as a vigilante, a thug, dangerously insane, and no better than the criminals he brings in. He may be respected, but he is not considered to be honorable because his tactics are brutal. He may catch the bad guy, but he does damage along the way and has never been shown in any attempt to repair or pay for that damage (I'm thinking property damage here, cars and buildings destroyed, that kind of thing).

Alfred, though not known to serve Batman, does so completely and as enthusiastically as his professional demeanor will allow. He helps build Batman's devices, he tends Batman's wounds.

He serves Bruce Wayne calmly and well and with great loyalty and affection, to the point of giving an honest opinion when Bruce needs to hear it.

Alfred has great honor, in my opinion. He also has a great deal of professional pride and skill.

And the first time I read your question, I read "dishonorable master" rather than "dishonored master."

On ducking the question -- I was drafted . . .

It depends...

Why was your master "dishonored"?

Who decided that something he or she did was "dishonorable" and why does this person have authorization to make such a judgment?

How is "dishonorable" defined within the context of your social group?

What did your master do?

Is your concept of "personal" honor an external or internal construct? In other words, whose opinion is most important to you, your own opinion or the opinions of others?

Maybe another way to approach this might be...

If you remain loyal to someone who is a good person, but who has been unfairly denigrated or unjustly accused, you are a good person.

If you remain loyal to someone who is evil and you obey his or her commands even though you believe you are doing bad things, you are a bad person.

What does it mean to "honorably" serve, anyway?

I am assuming a feudal type of society and a feudal notion of honour - wherein one swears on one's personal honour to serve a master to the best of one's ability. Perhaps even a society wherein there is a tradition of family service to the family of said master?

I hate this answer, but I think that such a person is honour-bound to serve even a dishonoured master to the best of his/her abilities even though such service would mean that that person should share in the master's fate/ punishment/ whatever. The Bible itself counsels such an answer when it advises people to honour shittened priests and the church traditionally held that absolution at the hands of corrupt priests was still absolution despite the obvious veniality of the vessel.

However, the oath of service to a master does not negate other oaths sworn - so a knight sworn to uphold right and justice is justified in defying his master as long as his actions do not harm his master's interest. I.E. s/he can defend a prisoner or captive from unlawful execution. Such an action would likely be seen as betrayal, however, and would result in said knight sharing the prisoner's fate.

Traditionally, those closest to a dishonourable leader have always been found culpable in that leader's dishonour, but the rank and file are usually not held to the same level of responsibility. Higher officers would lose their heads, lower officers would be imprisoned and fined, serving men would be imprisoned or whipped or just disarmed. It makes sense - one who is loyal even to the point of participating in dishonour could not honourably swear to be loyal to the opponent.

Yes, your personal honor is sullied if you serve a dishonored master. Because the universe sucks that way. Sometimes it's your duty to serve that master anyway, as well as you can. But it doesn't change that your personal honor is affected.

In the US military, officers are supposed to disobey an unlawful order. But how do they recognize that it's unlawful? It's always in retrospect. A court, a jury, points the finger and says 'shame on you, you should have known.' And this is true whether or not the people supported the actions when they were undertaken. It sucks. But every US officer takes professional military education that teaches them that this is how they serve the American people, that this is the risk they undertake willingly.

I think in the grand scheme of things, if you serve a bad king, your personal honor is affected. But you have no choice. It's just the universe mucking with you.

Ah, and The Iron Ring by Lloyd Alexander might also have something to say on this. Miss E read it earlier this year. A king believes himself bound to serve a master, whether it sullies his honor or not. The book uses a lot of the caste traditions from India (and all its various cultures). The king, as part of his service at one point in the story, is sentenced to serve as slave to an untouchable and toil as one of the burners of the dead. And he firmly believes his personal honor has been destroyed simply because he now serves the lowest of the low, the dishonored. His honor is restored at the end when it's revealed that all of this was a test and that no one else honored the bond he believed himself to be under.

Oz

In answering this question, I like to point to Bujold's Shards of Honor, where Aral carried out his sworn duty to the Empire and Emperor in full knowledge of the lies and betrayal required. His honor was unsullied, and yet, because he felt that he had be manipulated by that honor into sending his fellow officers and countrymen to their deaths, his soul was stained.

The answer lies in Vir from Babylon 5.

Even though Londo drug himself through darkness Vir never left him until he was ordered away.

And before you argue that Londo's honor was never sullied on his own home world remember that it _was_ sullied everywhere else.

Because of his service to Londo. Because he always tried to do what was right in his view regardless of the consequences, because of all these things I consider his honor intact despite Londo's slide downward.

So my answer is Yes. It is quite possible to serve a dishonored master and have your honor remain intact.

And sometimes, just sometimes, it's possible that you keeping your honor will help restore the honor of the master you serve.

Yes.

If you don't do anything dishonorable then whatever anyone else may think your honor is intact.

The reverse is also true. If you act dishonorably for yourself or in service to another then your honor is tainted whether anyone knows about it or not.

Your question also has a curious time line phrasing.

It doesn't affect my answer but does confuse things.

Is the individual serving before the dishonor is perceived?

Is the service during the time of dishonor?

Does the service begin after the dishonor?

And of course has the service been continuous from before to after?

Further along those lines -- most people agree that holding slaves is dishonorable. Is the slave dishonored by serving a dishonored master, under duress?

also came to give the military example, but with caveats to the above - if you honorably refuse to serve a dishonest master, odds are that you will lose your public honor anyway. You will know that you did the right thing, but the odds are slim that it will ever be recognized as such and your career is over.

I concur with your comment about public honor vs. personal honor. Just another way the universe mucks with us.

Jockey of Norfolk be not so bold.

It depends on your cultural expectations. Personally, I'd say yes, your honour is sullied. But you said "dishonoured" not "dishonourable".

Let's say I'm a typist and my master is at court and he slips on a banana peel and skids across the room and everybody laughs, and then he gets fired from his position because clearly this slip shows he's incompetent to run a department. This is a dishonour certainly, but it doesn't reflect at all on my honour, and indeed it speaks well of me if I stay by him typing away in his disgrace. If however he's fired for peculation, then my honour does suffer by continuing in his service, even if he never gave me any of the embezzling letters to type, and if he commits genocide and is given a medal I should leave him and work against him.

Somebody mentioned slaves. There's no question to me, if you're forced your own honour isn't in question. But there's a more difficult issue with modern people in low-employment situations -- they can quit and should, but their families need to eat, their families need (in the US) medical care, if they stop typing their lives will be hard. If that's embezzling letters? If that's genocidal letters? Lots of people will keep typing, and some people will say "I still have my honour, I was forced" and others will say "I have compromised my honour and will atone when I can" and others will say "I have compromised my honour anyway, I might as well also..."

I don't see honour as a virginity to be lost, or as something external. But I come from the culture I come from, and people's ideas about honour and duty are stronger cultural markers than anything else I know.

I'm with

drammar and

nimitzbrood; the Alfred/Batman example was one of the first that occurred to me as well (see particularly the end of the cinematic version of The Dark Knight, which sets up this situation almost precisely).

Essentially, the question is problematic because the set of "dishonored masters" is too broad to permit safe generalization.

Oh, an interesting question. reedrover cited Bujold, but not the part I would have. I would have cited the distinction that Gregor requests and requires Aral to make to Miles. He says that reputation is what other people think they know about you, and honor is what you know about yourself. And that you should guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it may, and outlive the bastards.

This also makes me think about the perspective that tragedy is not the conflict of good against evil; it's good against good. Loyalty is good. Serving honorably is good. When that comes into conflict with other goods, then you come into the cultural territory papersky mentioned. If you have two loyalties, and they come into conflict with each other, then you have to make a choice between them. And something will nearly always be lost in that choice.

I see honor in honorably serving, even if the master is dishonored, if you believe that the dishonor was undeserved. I do not see honor in continuing to serve dishonorable goals. But these are, quite literally, questions that put brother against brother. On the other hand, it's also distinctions like these that can allow one to have a respected enemy.

Along these lines..."Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.(LMB)"

Edited 2011-02-08 17:19 (UTC)

If you choose to serve someone whom you know to be dishonorable, however honorable your own conduct, no, your honor is not unsullied. If you work for a company that has... debatable business practices, or engages in strike-breaking, for example (or if you contribute to their profit margins by buying their products) - even if your other choice is penury - even if you, personally, never do anything dishonorable, you're still helping, or enabling, someone else to be dishonorable.

But the world's like that. I don't think there's anyone over the age of majority who can claim completely clean hands.

Are we talking about Honor, or reputation? To quote Bujold:
"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself."

I think that it is possible to serve a dishonored master without sullying your own, but I also don't think that it gives you an automatic out. Like everyone else, I think that it needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

OTOH, it would be nearly impossibly to serve a dishonored master and have your reputation remain intact.

The only exception I can think of is if public opinion says the master was dishonorable, but you know he/she was honorable.

So you could think you were acting honorable even after the public thinks you were dishonorable, until you discovered you were wrong.

It would still kind of suck knowing you were honorable and everyone think you were dishonorable. Of course it would suck even more to find out you honor was sullied thru no fault of your own. People have killed for that.

Is the master dishonored or dishonourable?
If the former, as long as they were working to redeem themselves and my service does not require me to be dishonourable, then no, my honour is unsullied.

If the master is dishonourable, then yes; complicity whether silent or active would sully my honour too.

This assumes we are talking about honour, integrity, not reputation.

Paradox, shmaradox! Screw the "I was only following orders" argument. We know about illegal orders, right? If the boss is dishonorable and you knowingly serve him (were you subject to mind control, idiot?), then you are no different than he or she is.

Once I had a client who had copied someone else's software and wanted to use it in his own business with no permission from, or payment to the developer/owner. The original developer would never know that it was happening. I sent my client a letter and said that it was wrong and that I could not be a party to it and I terminated the relationship. Lost a lot of billings, but I lived happily ever after.

Honor is not static, you cannot retain your honor when acting dishonorable. If the Master you serve is dishonorable your actions are dishonorable. Therefore you are dishonorable.

Honor's Paradox

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Vir.

Is your personal honor unsullied?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

RE: Honor's Paradox

honor